Somehow I doubt that almost 100% of the coins that are sold in the major auctions have had a CAC review.
You may be correct, but I bid believing they were, and the auction house knows there is more money in it for them if they are CAC.
(Outside of common junk of course)
If all of the significant non CAC coins in the aucitons are CAC rejects, why do they sell for so much money?
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
In contrast to some here, I think these debates on CAC are constructive for numismatics and so what if we have these debates over and over again. After all, CAC is right now, perhaps the most influential driver of pricing for non-modern US coins. Seems to me then this is an important topic to anyone who spends hard earned money on little gold, silver, and copper pieces. Each time one of these start anew, there are always some posts where folks see the issues differently, hence, a learning experience.
FWIW, I love getting JA's opinion and ~90% of my pre-modern US issued coins are CAC. I like that a collector can benefit from an expert graders opinion and learn - especially about surface problems which is largely what CAC focuses on for the worn coins I collect. But I also learn as much from the the other JA, DW, BJ, and TB who in my view are as good at grading and spotting surface issues.
The biggest concern I have is what Bill Jones notes - one company right now is controlling how we price coins, that is never good for numismatics, just as if one TPG dominated grading is not a good thing either, competition is what drives markets and knowledge forward.....
MY opinion is that so many are shortsighted that they fail to recognize that ANY ....complication.... added to "grading" can be self defeating.
It is a BRILLIANT concept.
Almost any coin dealer or longtime collector should be able to identify .....uncertainty.... as the main bane of MODERN numismatics.
So someone capitalized on this with a brainstorm idea that requires no manufacturing costs yet has found acceptance and wild success in rendering opinions on ....opinions.
I am in AWE of the simplicity and brilliance of the concept as a business.
Once a collecting field has to deal with UNCERTAINTY, it is bound to affect the decision of whether or not to participate in the newest, greatest, most wonderfullest, super issue du jour.
I can't help but wonder how many collectors are wondering if this is something they even want to deal with.
A HUGE part of "uncertainty" that was HIGHLY detrimental to the hobby was ...authenticity.... and the TPGs perform a valuable service in ALLAYING fear. Bravo!
I am also in awe of the dismissal of any negative aspects by DEALERS whose futures depend on collectors' faith in a stable hobby.
TPGs were one thing. NOW, we are to believe that our acceptance of the expertise of the fee based grading companies is.....now.... questionable.
NOT good. Not good in the long run.
I would advise.....probably to the walls ..... that all dealers SHOULD discuss exactly WHAT their positions are on CAC. Something that a collector could think about when deciding whether to purchase a given coin. Prominently explained on their websites (if they have one)
The tacit SUPPORT for this ACCEPTANCE model is contrary to what dealers that ....I... have known would support as a philosophy in any other area.
I can personally and honestly say that nothing else has ever gotten me this close to getting out "while the gettin's good" than CAC.
Do I buy em? yes ....and without,too
Ya gotta go where the wind blows.
But ya also gotta know if it's more than just wind.
@caddyshack said:
From the little I know, JA only buys coins already CAC to support his market. His ethics are unquestioned. He started CAC not for personal gain-just to help the market with gradeflation and coin doctoring issues.
He is certainly rewarding the submitters with a near no lose proposition. Collector base at large though is left guessing. I have yet to see a dealer note in a listing that a coin up for sale or auction was submitted to CAC and did not meet their criteria. They certainly boast about the beans though.
Mark Feld has volunteered to reveal a CAC failure. I have seen Legend Auctions do it once I believe.
@Coinstartled said:
The 1804 is moot as I am not in the market for 7 figure coins. The concern though is the gentleman has access to a complete list of those holdered coins that have failed to earn a coveted sticker. More importantly, he also knows which coins have not yet been submitted and are eligible for the coveted and highly valued elevation to CACdom.
Might be a good time to publish the results of all submissions, Mr. A.
@caddyshack said:
From the little I know, JA only buys coins already CAC to support his market. His ethics are unquestioned. He started CAC not for personal gain-just to help the market with gradeflation and coin doctoring issues.
He is certainly rewarding the submitters with a near no lose proposition. Collector base at large though is left guessing. I have yet to see a dealer note in a listing that a coin up for sale or auction was submitted to CAC and did not meet their criteria. They certainly boast about the beans though.
Mark Feld has volunteered to reveal a CAC failure. I have seen Legend Auctions do it once I believe.
Feld has been with Heritage for four years. Has he carried over the practice to his new employer? I don't ever recall seeing such a revelation in a heritage listing, though my bailiwick is generally the sub $10,000 coins.
@caddyshack said:
From the little I know, JA only buys coins already CAC to support his market. His ethics are unquestioned. He started CAC not for personal gain-just to help the market with gradeflation and coin doctoring issues.
He is certainly rewarding the submitters with a near no lose proposition. Collector base at large though is left guessing. I have yet to see a dealer note in a listing that a coin up for sale or auction was submitted to CAC and did not meet their criteria. They certainly boast about the beans though.
Mark Feld has volunteered to reveal a CAC failure. I have seen Legend Auctions do it once I believe.
Feld has been with Heritage for several years. Has he carried over the practice to his new employer? I don't ever recall seeing such a revelation in a heritage listing, though my bailiwick is generally the sub $10,000 coins.
it would seem that JA would remember if they had seen the 1804 and really a CAC on that one wouldn't matter.........not like his is bidding on St. G $20s in MS63......IMHO
@skeeterhawk said:
it would seem that JA would remember if they had seen the 1804 and really a CAC on that one wouldn't matter.........not like his is bidding on St. G $20s in MS63......IMHO
@Coinstartled said:
The 1804 is moot as I am not in the market for 7 figure coins. The concern though is the gentleman has access to a complete list of those holdered coins that have failed to earn a coveted sticker. More importantly, he also knows which coins have not yet been submitted and are eligible for the coveted and highly valued elevation to CACdom.
Might be a good time to publish the results of all submissions, Mr. A.
That would create chaos and problems IMHO.
Likely true. What it would do is take away the easy and safe $13 crap shoot to get a coin stickered.
CoinStartled: When we can no longer challenge the third party graders.....the hobby is done.
I am a strong believer in open and fair discussion of the grades of specific coins. More so than any other writer, I do "challenge the third party graders," so to speak. There is a difference, however, between expressing logical opinions and publicly posting unsubstantiated remarks about the behavior of a third party grader.
The remarks or implications in the original post are factually wrong, not a matter of opinion. JA is NOT more likely to sticker coins that CAC owns than coins that are submitted by others. He does not analyze databases before bidding in auctions. As I said, with extremely rare exceptions, JA bids on CAC stickered coins in auctions and he bids at wholesale levels. Collectors who are bidding on the same coins are NOT at a disadvantage.
Bill Jones: Somehow I doubt that almost 100% of the [rare U.S.] coins that are sold in the major auctions have had a CAC review.
I believe that they have, and I have been analyzing auctions for more than twenty years. There are very few people who have a better idea of what goes on in auctions.
More importantly, we are talking past each other. I am NOT saying that I am always in agreement with CAC. There are coins that failed to sticker that I think should have stickered. Consider the batting average analogy. CAC will be wrong about some coins. CAC buys back coins. Even Ted Williams struck out at times.
There are doctored coins with CAC stickers. There are also CAC approved coins that almost every other expert grader thinks are overgraded. Poll a significant number of expert graders, including some of those that have been named by Roadrunner in other threads, and this will be shown to be true.
My revelations do not constitute a criticism of CAC; it is just a factual reality regarding coin grading. No player can get on base every time.
I acknowledge that JA is, indisputably, the nation's leading expert on U.S. gold coins. Nevertheless, it is wrong to mislead people into thinking that JA bats 1.000 or anywhere near 1.000. I never said as much.
I emphasized that there are philosophical disagreements. It is indisputable that there are many obviously and blatantly dipped, 19th century coins in holders with CAC stickers, most of which I think should not have stickered. There are also quite a few, deeply toned Liberty Seated coins, including some with a Kaufman pedigree, that have failed to receive CAC stickers. I find many (not all) of those Kaufman coins to be "solid" for their respective certified grades. These are points that are well worth discussing in a rational manner.
"""The remarks or implications in the original post are factually wrong, not a matter of opinion. JA is NOT more likely to sticker coins that CAC owns than coins that are submitted by others."""
I never made that assertion or suggestion. My point was that JA has information on submitted and non CAC'd coins that I and the general collecting/dealing public do not.
"""He does not analyze databases before bidding in auctions. As I said, with extremely rare exceptions, JA bids on CAC stickered coins in auctions and he bids at wholesale levels. Collectors who are bidding on the same coins are NOT at a disadvantage."""
The enterprise would be less cloudy if he was not wearing the hat of grader as well as bidder.
What information? Any one could have found out which Pogue coins were beaned. Anyone can go plug in a serial number from any coin on the CAC web site. Its bad enough we tolerate cranky old man Jones, but this thread borders ridiculous.
As far as JA buying the 1804 $1 and it not being beaned-it is the most famous rarity on earth. It sold almost BELOW market due to mischief by Pogue and Stacks on the lat one for sale. Further it was Lipton who left the bid and asked JA to partner. He never chased it knowing it would sticker possibly. They only took a shot not believing they had any chance to buy it.
I bid all the time against JA even w/stickers. I'd much rather go against him then the crack head crack out dealers/coin docs!
Anyone can go plug in a serial number from any coin on the CAC web site. Its bad enough we tolerate cranky old man Jones, but this thread borders ridiculous.
I believe that they have, and I have been analyzing auctions for more than twenty years. There are very few people who have a better idea of what goes on in auctions.
I find this very disturbing, and I hope that you have the credentials to support what you say and are not just another CAC booster.
It means that those us who submit substantial, meaningful bids in the major auctions for coins that don't have CAC stickers have deckchairs on the numismatic Titanic if there are as many CAC supporters as we see on these boards. Maybe it's time to call it quits in the U.S. coin market, except for minor items, because one man has the power to determine what's good and what's bad. That situation is not healthy in any way.
I really wish that I was in JA's position, because it's the easiest way to become very rich based solely on your reputation. Every dealer and collector who goes though a boxes of dealers' inventory and boxes of major auction lots has to make the same decisions with one very important caveat. If the coin is properly graded, you have decide, as a dealer, if you can make money on the asking price. As a collector you have to decide if the price is fair, given other opportunities you have seen in the market.
In CAC's case, you don't have to make that price decision at all, which is huge. All you have to do is decide if the coin meets or exceeds the grade on the holder. For an experienced grader, that's a piece of cake if you know the series. And if you go really conservative, you can reject coins that are okay, and you still get paid. I have really misused the talents that nature gave me.
This is not good ... not good at all, and I'm glad that my want list is really getting down to a precious few with respect to U.S. coins. I hope that CAC does not get involved with tokens, medals, foreign coins and some colonial pieces. It is ruining the hobby for me.
The number of CAC approved pieces for the coins on my want list is very limited, and the prices will even higher than the prices I have paid already, which seem excessive. I don't see anywhere else to go, but out of the hobby, unless I want to lose more money when I sell my collection, than I could ever have imagined.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
On a more serious note... Is someone holding common sense hostage as there is no sign of it in this discussion. What is it about TPG and stickers or the inability to sticker that brings out the worst in the US Coin Market?
This is just not resonating well.
End the obsession. Coins need to be the focal point of discussions...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Seems Coinstartled has become to accustomed to being an employee of the New England Patriots... now like a good socialist, he demands you give him everything...
CoinStartled: My point was that JA has information on submitted and non CAC'd coins that I and the general collecting/dealing public do not.
If I mis-understood the general thrust of the original post, I apologize. It still seems that CoinStartled is arguing that JA is using some kind of inside information when bidding at aucitons and thus his bidding is unfair to other bidders. This is just not true. With extremely rare exceptions, JA is just placing wholesale bids on CAC stickered coins. He has always made it clear that he is supportive of markets for CAC coins. There is no unfair advantage. Collectors can buy the CAC coins in auctions at retail levels.
CoinStartled: The enterprise would be less cloudy if he was not wearing the hat of grader as well as bidder.
There are no such clouds! It is beneficial to the owners of CAC coins that JA is willing to buy them.
Caddyshack: What information? Any one could have found out which Pogue coins were beaned. Anyone can go plug in a serial number from any coin on the CAC web site. ... Further it was Lipton who left the bid and asked JA to partner. He never chased it knowing it would sticker possibly.
Yes, this is an exception. 1804 dollars are famous coins and are physically rare. There are just five privately owned Class One 1804 dollars. No one is speculating on a sticker being applied. The sticker issue had nothing to do with Kevin's bid. The Dexter-Dunham-Bareford-Pogue-Morelan 1804 is an important part of history, regardless of its quality.
Bill Jones: I find this very disturbing, and I hope that you have the credentials to support what you say and are not just another CAC booster.
Are we really going to have another public discussion about my credentials? Where have you been? Send an e-mail to me: Insightful10@gmail.com
Did Mr. Jones read my entire post a few hours ago? He is welcome to disagree with me. Indeed, I invite the expression of contrary views. But, please, read what I have to say. I made it clear that I am "not just another CAC booster."
Mr. Jones, CoinStartled and I are talking past each other. I am NOT saying that I am always in agreement with CAC. There are coins that failed to sticker that I think should have stickered.
Consider the batting average analogy. Even Ted Williams struck out at times.
There are doctored coins with CAC stickers. There are also CAC approved coins that almost every other expert grader thinks are overgraded. Poll a significant number of expert graders, including some of those that have been named by Roadrunner in other threads, and this will be shown to be true.
My revelations do not constitute a criticism of CAC; it is just a factual reality regarding coin grading. No player can get on base every time.
I acknowledge that JA is, indisputably, the nation's leading expert on U.S. gold coins. Nevertheless, it is wrong to mislead people into thinking that JA bats 1.000 or anywhere near 1.000. I never said as much.
I emphasized that there are philosophical disagreements. It is indisputable that there are many obviously and blatantly dipped, 19th century coins in holders with CAC stickers, most of which I think should not have stickered. There are also quite a few, deeply toned Liberty Seated coins, including some with a Kaufman pedigree, that have failed to receive CAC stickers because JA finds them to be too dark. I find many (not all) of those Kaufman coins to be "solid" for their respective certified grades. These are points that are well worth discussing in a rational manner.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
@rawteam1 said:
Seems Coinstartled has become to accustomed to being an employee of the New England Patriots... now like a good socialist, he demands you give him everything...
@Coinstartled said:
"""It is an 1804 Class I dollar, not an 1881-S Morgan in 64 that some guy named Dexter took a screwdriver to. Different grading rules apply. Sorry if that comes as a surprise."""
C'mon....even Eureka, Henway and TDN don't buy that it is a 65.
Read the original1804 thread. I bumped it for you....
Does anybody really care that it's not a true 65? Makes no difference as there is no debate that this is the third ranked 1804 Class 1 dollar. Doesn't really need a grade to be honest
mark
The coin certainly transcends the number on the holder. Most on this board can reach that conclusion. Perhaps a wealthy international buyer though takes the number at face value and bids significantly higher as a result.
I suppose though that he would deserve his fate as the coin was un stickered...
Nothing that you posted means more than than statement that almost 100% of the significant non CAC coins have been reviewed by CAC and have been rejected. That is a total game changer. It means that whatever anyone one else might think, the AUTHORITY has said those coins are overgraded, and that those who bid on those coins are fools.
I know I'm not a fool, but the CAC market tells everyone else I am. It means that many very significant gold coins that I own are going to be nothing but trouble when it cames time to sell them at auction. I will try to fill the want list I have left, after that I am done with very expensive U.S. coins. It is a fool's game because because CAC controls the market.
I should give the people I respect in the auction business a chance to confirm this, and I will.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Bill Jones: Nothing that you posted means more than than statement that almost 100% of the significant non CAC coins have been reviewed by CAC and have been rejected.
Let us say 95+% of the relatively high quality rarities, including condition rarities, that cost more than $1500 each. I was referring to major Heritage and SBG auctions. The Goldbergs send a lot of coins to CAC, too, though I do not analyze Goldbergs auctions of rare U.S. coins as much as I did in the past. I have been covering their auctions of world coins.
Bill Jones: I should give the people I respect in the auction business a chance to confirm this, and I will.
They will not know exactly. CAC was founded in 2007. Many coins that are offered now were sent in the past. There are some coins that have been sent to CAC on several occasions. CAC evaluates 400 to 500 coins every business day, many of which come from auction companies.
Bill Jones: That is a total game changer.
No, there are many people who will not pay much of a premium (if any) for CAC coins and will gladly buy non-CAC coins. Obviously, CAC coins are not needed for PCGS registry sets.
In some areas, there are few CAC approved coins. It would be almost impossible to sensibly collect, circulated rare date gold while considering only CAC approved coins. For some rarities, zero to five are CAC approved. It is logical to consider non-CAC coins. I cannot agree with the CAC-only crowd. Mr. Jones is over-reacting.
Bill Jones: It means that whatever anyone one else might think, the AUTHORITY has said those coins are overgraded, and that those who bid on those coins are fools.
No, the matter is not that simple. A coin may not be solid for the grade and still be accurately graded. A coin that grades 65.2 (65C in JA's terminology) and is in a 65 holder may fail to sticker, though still be accurately graded. Also, in auctions, a non-CAC coin in a 65 holder may bring a 64-level price. In some cases, those are good deals.
Many non-CAC coins do well in auctions. Sometimes, there are bidding wars for non-CAC coins. The average difference in prices realized between CAC and non-CAC coins is not as large as Mr. Jones is implying that it might e or could soon become. Moreover, many of the CAC approved coins generated enthusiasm before CAC was founded in 2007. There are a multitude of factors that affect auction prices. CAC is an important factor, but there are other leading factors.
On many occasions, I I have recommended coins that failed at CAC to my clients, while explicitly acknowledging that such coins will probably never sticker in their current holders. I explain plausible reasons as to why specific coins were not stickered. IMO, it is important to discuss the positive and negative aspects of individual coins, regardless of whether they have stickers. The characteristics of a coin cannot be entirely boiled down to a single number. Certifications are being taken too seriously! Besides, neither JA nor PCGS will last forever. Eventually, there will be new services and market grading criteria will continue to change.
Nothing that you posted means more than than statement that almost 100% of the significant non CAC coins have been reviewed by CAC and have been rejected. That is a total game changer. It means that whatever anyone one else might think, the AUTHORITY has said those coins are overgraded, and that those who bid on those coins are fools.
It doesn't mean that at all.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Analyst: This has been an informative but also gut wrenching thread. You seem to be back peddling the influence of CAC a bit. As I see it though, CAC has influence over perhaps a billion dollars worth of $1000 plus graded coins. In my experience the sticker is worth a 10% pop in price. That is significant. Particularly when left to a single pair of eyes. Are there other graders at CAC other than JA? Is there a succession plan?
Joebb21 noted that JA will remove the sticker from a previously approved coin if the resale at or above his bid is not available. Can you confirm that to be true?
Before CAC, the Ne Plus Ultra of the industry was PCGS. One knew that David Hall was at the helm, but never considered him to be the only grader and finalizer in the room.
It is disingenuous to reference Bill Jones as over reacting. Each man is king of his financial dominion.
I will follow his path and will pivot to a measured but steady liquidation of my professionally graded holdings.
Reread the thread, TDN. Seems that those allied to CAC are the most fervent supporters. Many collectors though have concerns about the operation. Several forum veterans are shoved aside as chicken littles.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
John Albanese got back into numismatics with CAC. I have it on good authority that he does quite a bit of wholesaling of gold coins and Morgans. If he is willing to buy a coin, it gets a sticker. He makes his money buying and selling coins, not by stickering them.
He is one of the smartest people in the room, and in my few dealings with him, is a stand up guy. He is well respected by anyone who knows anything in the numismatic community. But his willing to buy a coin doesn't automatically mean that it is superior for the grade, as Analyst pointed out in an earlier post. And there are some coins that just might not interest him, because he doesn't think he can sell them quickly. Some might have problems, and others might be just fine, but he may not think he can sell them quickly enough for his liking to sticker them.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@caddyshack said:
Its bad enough we tolerate cranky old man Jones, but this thread borders ridiculous.
Not really productive to start denigrating fellow posters.... If you think this thread is ridiculous, why post on it?
Best, SH
Thank you!
I appears that the troll has returned. Let's ignore him until he can take a civil tone.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
In terms of "overgraded CAC coins"...isn't JA saying that a stickered coin is worth the money of the associated grade? Many toners trade at 1-2 grade price levels above the slab grade. So if a 63 toner shows up in a 64 slab, no sticker?
@Coinstartled said:
Reread the thread, TDN. Seems that those allied to CAC are the most fervent supporters. Many collectors though have concerns about the operation. Several forum veterans are shoved aside as chicken littles.
As a young collector, I whole heartedly support CAC and what it means to the coin market and hobby.
@shorecoll said:
In terms of "overgraded CAC coins"...isn't JA saying that a stickered coin is worth the money of the associated grade? Many toners trade at 1-2 grade price levels above the slab grade. So if a 63 toner shows up in a 64 slab, no sticker?
In my experience many toners do not have a CAC sticker. I have always taken this to mean that JA prefers not to make market in toned coins that trade at price levels 1-2 grades above the slab grade. I have purchased toned IHC's from dealers that specialize in them and they are not a supporter of CAC, and in fact make written acknowledgment of that on their web sites.
Comments
You may be correct, but I bid believing they were, and the auction house knows there is more money in it for them if they are CAC.
(Outside of common junk of course)
@BillJones +1
The original thought that JA would have to "check his list" to assess a coin: ROFL
And do you think he consulted CoinFacts to see what the Price Guide lists as the value of that 1804??
Are you serious??
If all of the significant non CAC coins in the aucitons are CAC rejects, why do they sell for so much money?
Only the ones you bid on, remember!
Such fun we're having.
I'm starting a new company to evaluate coins.
Positive
Opinion
Submissions
I'm soliciting ideas for a catchy 3 letters for the brown stickers.
Ownership interest for the best 10 entries.
In contrast to some here, I think these debates on CAC are constructive for numismatics and so what if we have these debates over and over again. After all, CAC is right now, perhaps the most influential driver of pricing for non-modern US coins. Seems to me then this is an important topic to anyone who spends hard earned money on little gold, silver, and copper pieces. Each time one of these start anew, there are always some posts where folks see the issues differently, hence, a learning experience.
FWIW, I love getting JA's opinion and ~90% of my pre-modern US issued coins are CAC. I like that a collector can benefit from an expert graders opinion and learn - especially about surface problems which is largely what CAC focuses on for the worn coins I collect. But I also learn as much from the the other JA, DW, BJ, and TB who in my view are as good at grading and spotting surface issues.
The biggest concern I have is what Bill Jones notes - one company right now is controlling how we price coins, that is never good for numismatics, just as if one TPG dominated grading is not a good thing either, competition is what drives markets and knowledge forward.....
Best, SH
One company controls pricing? Without CAC perhaps - thank to NGCs current state - but with CAC it's two not one.
That is certainly one way to look at it, but perhaps some see the combination of the TPG and CAC as one in pricing?
"NGC's current state"?
You mean NGC's consistency?
Or do you mean their rules that NGC graders are not allowed to participate in buying/selling coins, thus to avoid conflicts of interest?
I do have "conflict of interest" concerns with both PCGS and CAC, but I will not air those complete details here -- for fear of being banned.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
S.O.A.P.
Submission opinion always positive!
MY opinion is that so many are shortsighted that they fail to recognize that ANY ....complication.... added to "grading" can be self defeating.
It is a BRILLIANT concept.
Almost any coin dealer or longtime collector should be able to identify .....uncertainty.... as the main bane of MODERN numismatics.
So someone capitalized on this with a brainstorm idea that requires no manufacturing costs yet has found acceptance and wild success in rendering opinions on ....opinions.
I am in AWE of the simplicity and brilliance of the concept as a business.
Once a collecting field has to deal with UNCERTAINTY, it is bound to affect the decision of whether or not to participate in the newest, greatest, most wonderfullest, super issue du jour.
I can't help but wonder how many collectors are wondering if this is something they even want to deal with.
A HUGE part of "uncertainty" that was HIGHLY detrimental to the hobby was ...authenticity.... and the TPGs perform a valuable service in ALLAYING fear. Bravo!
I am also in awe of the dismissal of any negative aspects by DEALERS whose futures depend on collectors' faith in a stable hobby.
TPGs were one thing. NOW, we are to believe that our acceptance of the expertise of the fee based grading companies is.....now.... questionable.
NOT good. Not good in the long run.
I would advise.....probably to the walls
..... that all dealers SHOULD discuss exactly WHAT their positions are on CAC. Something that a collector could think about when deciding whether to purchase a given coin. Prominently explained on their websites (if they have one)
The tacit SUPPORT for this ACCEPTANCE model is contrary to what dealers that ....I... have known would support as a philosophy in any other area.
I can personally and honestly say that nothing else has ever gotten me this close to getting out "while the gettin's good" than CAC.
Do I buy em? yes ....and without,too
Ya gotta go where the wind blows.
But ya also gotta know if it's more than just wind.
Mark Feld has volunteered to reveal a CAC failure. I have seen Legend Auctions do it once I believe.
That would create chaos and problems IMHO.
Feld has been with Heritage for four years. Has he carried over the practice to his new employer? I don't ever recall seeing such a revelation in a heritage listing, though my bailiwick is generally the sub $10,000 coins.
I'm referring to his dealer days.
it would seem that JA would remember if they had seen the 1804 and really a CAC on that one wouldn't matter.........not like his is bidding on St. G $20s in MS63......IMHO
Likely true. What it would do is take away the easy and safe $13 crap shoot to get a coin stickered.
CoinStartled:
I am a strong believer in open and fair discussion of the grades of specific coins. More so than any other writer, I do "challenge the third party graders," so to speak. There is a difference, however, between expressing logical opinions and publicly posting unsubstantiated remarks about the behavior of a third party grader.
The remarks or implications in the original post are factually wrong, not a matter of opinion. JA is NOT more likely to sticker coins that CAC owns than coins that are submitted by others. He does not analyze databases before bidding in auctions. As I said, with extremely rare exceptions, JA bids on CAC stickered coins in auctions and he bids at wholesale levels. Collectors who are bidding on the same coins are NOT at a disadvantage.
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins
Bill Jones:
I believe that they have, and I have been analyzing auctions for more than twenty years. There are very few people who have a better idea of what goes on in auctions.
More importantly, we are talking past each other. I am NOT saying that I am always in agreement with CAC. There are coins that failed to sticker that I think should have stickered. Consider the batting average analogy. CAC will be wrong about some coins. CAC buys back coins. Even Ted Williams struck out at times.
There are doctored coins with CAC stickers. There are also CAC approved coins that almost every other expert grader thinks are overgraded. Poll a significant number of expert graders, including some of those that have been named by Roadrunner in other threads, and this will be shown to be true.
My revelations do not constitute a criticism of CAC; it is just a factual reality regarding coin grading. No player can get on base every time.
I acknowledge that JA is, indisputably, the nation's leading expert on U.S. gold coins. Nevertheless, it is wrong to mislead people into thinking that JA bats 1.000 or anywhere near 1.000. I never said as much.
I emphasized that there are philosophical disagreements. It is indisputable that there are many obviously and blatantly dipped, 19th century coins in holders with CAC stickers, most of which I think should not have stickered. There are also quite a few, deeply toned Liberty Seated coins, including some with a Kaufman pedigree, that have failed to receive CAC stickers. I find many (not all) of those Kaufman coins to be "solid" for their respective certified grades. These are points that are well worth discussing in a rational manner.
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
"""The remarks or implications in the original post are factually wrong, not a matter of opinion. JA is NOT more likely to sticker coins that CAC owns than coins that are submitted by others."""
I never made that assertion or suggestion. My point was that JA has information on submitted and non CAC'd coins that I and the general collecting/dealing public do not.
"""He does not analyze databases before bidding in auctions. As I said, with extremely rare exceptions, JA bids on CAC stickered coins in auctions and he bids at wholesale levels. Collectors who are bidding on the same coins are NOT at a disadvantage."""
The enterprise would be less cloudy if he was not wearing the hat of grader as well as bidder.
What information? Any one could have found out which Pogue coins were beaned. Anyone can go plug in a serial number from any coin on the CAC web site. Its bad enough we tolerate cranky old man Jones, but this thread borders ridiculous.
As far as JA buying the 1804 $1 and it not being beaned-it is the most famous rarity on earth. It sold almost BELOW market due to mischief by Pogue and Stacks on the lat one for sale. Further it was Lipton who left the bid and asked JA to partner. He never chased it knowing it would sticker possibly. They only took a shot not believing they had any chance to buy it.
I bid all the time against JA even w/stickers. I'd much rather go against him then the crack head crack out dealers/coin docs!
Anyone can go plug in a serial number from any coin on the CAC web site. Its bad enough we tolerate cranky old man Jones, but this thread borders ridiculous.
....and see if has been rejected for a sticker???
.....and insulting Bill Jones is reprehensible.
Perfect
Opinion
Service
Topstuf... I think we can take this concept in new direction. The new company name says it all.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I find this very disturbing, and I hope that you have the credentials to support what you say and are not just another CAC booster.
It means that those us who submit substantial, meaningful bids in the major auctions for coins that don't have CAC stickers have deckchairs on the numismatic Titanic if there are as many CAC supporters as we see on these boards. Maybe it's time to call it quits in the U.S. coin market, except for minor items, because one man has the power to determine what's good and what's bad. That situation is not healthy in any way.
I really wish that I was in JA's position, because it's the easiest way to become very rich based solely on your reputation. Every dealer and collector who goes though a boxes of dealers' inventory and boxes of major auction lots has to make the same decisions with one very important caveat. If the coin is properly graded, you have decide, as a dealer, if you can make money on the asking price. As a collector you have to decide if the price is fair, given other opportunities you have seen in the market.
In CAC's case, you don't have to make that price decision at all, which is huge. All you have to do is decide if the coin meets or exceeds the grade on the holder. For an experienced grader, that's a piece of cake if you know the series. And if you go really conservative, you can reject coins that are okay, and you still get paid. I have really misused the talents that nature gave me.
This is not good ... not good at all, and I'm glad that my want list is really getting down to a precious few with respect to U.S. coins. I hope that CAC does not get involved with tokens, medals, foreign coins and some colonial pieces. It is ruining the hobby for me.
The number of CAC approved pieces for the coins on my want list is very limited, and the prices will even higher than the prices I have paid already, which seem excessive. I don't see anywhere else to go, but out of the hobby, unless I want to lose more money when I sell my collection, than I could ever have imagined.
On a more serious note... Is someone holding common sense hostage as there is no sign of it in this discussion. What is it about TPG and stickers or the inability to sticker that brings out the worst in the US Coin Market?
This is just not resonating well.
End the obsession. Coins need to be the focal point of discussions...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Seems Coinstartled has become to accustomed to being an employee of the New England Patriots... now like a good socialist, he demands you give him everything...
If you're as good as you think you are are grading, Bill then just buy what you like and submit it again. I have....
CoinStartled:
If I mis-understood the general thrust of the original post, I apologize. It still seems that CoinStartled is arguing that JA is using some kind of inside information when bidding at aucitons and thus his bidding is unfair to other bidders. This is just not true. With extremely rare exceptions, JA is just placing wholesale bids on CAC stickered coins. He has always made it clear that he is supportive of markets for CAC coins. There is no unfair advantage. Collectors can buy the CAC coins in auctions at retail levels.
CoinStartled:
There are no such clouds! It is beneficial to the owners of CAC coins that JA is willing to buy them.
Caddyshack:
Yes, this is an exception. 1804 dollars are famous coins and are physically rare. There are just five privately owned Class One 1804 dollars. No one is speculating on a sticker being applied. The sticker issue had nothing to do with Kevin's bid. The Dexter-Dunham-Bareford-Pogue-Morelan 1804 is an important part of history, regardless of its quality.
Bill Jones:
Are we really going to have another public discussion about my credentials? Where have you been? Send an e-mail to me: Insightful10@gmail.com
Did Mr. Jones read my entire post a few hours ago? He is welcome to disagree with me. Indeed, I invite the expression of contrary views. But, please, read what I have to say. I made it clear that I am "not just another CAC booster."
Mr. Jones, CoinStartled and I are talking past each other. I am NOT saying that I am always in agreement with CAC. There are coins that failed to sticker that I think should have stickered.
Consider the batting average analogy. Even Ted Williams struck out at times.
There are doctored coins with CAC stickers. There are also CAC approved coins that almost every other expert grader thinks are overgraded. Poll a significant number of expert graders, including some of those that have been named by Roadrunner in other threads, and this will be shown to be true.
My revelations do not constitute a criticism of CAC; it is just a factual reality regarding coin grading. No player can get on base every time.
I acknowledge that JA is, indisputably, the nation's leading expert on U.S. gold coins. Nevertheless, it is wrong to mislead people into thinking that JA bats 1.000 or anywhere near 1.000. I never said as much.
I emphasized that there are philosophical disagreements. It is indisputable that there are many obviously and blatantly dipped, 19th century coins in holders with CAC stickers, most of which I think should not have stickered. There are also quite a few, deeply toned Liberty Seated coins, including some with a Kaufman pedigree, that have failed to receive CAC stickers because JA finds them to be too dark. I find many (not all) of those Kaufman coins to be "solid" for their respective certified grades. These are points that are well worth discussing in a rational manner.
*too
The coin certainly transcends the number on the holder. Most on this board can reach that conclusion. Perhaps a wealthy international buyer though takes the number at face value and bids significantly higher as a result.
I suppose though that he would deserve his fate as the coin was un stickered...
@Analyst
Nothing that you posted means more than than statement that almost 100% of the significant non CAC coins have been reviewed by CAC and have been rejected. That is a total game changer. It means that whatever anyone one else might think, the AUTHORITY has said those coins are overgraded, and that those who bid on those coins are fools.
I know I'm not a fool, but the CAC market tells everyone else I am. It means that many very significant gold coins that I own are going to be nothing but trouble when it cames time to sell them at auction. I will try to fill the want list I have left, after that I am done with very expensive U.S. coins. It is a fool's game because because CAC controls the market.
I should give the people I respect in the auction business a chance to confirm this, and I will.
Bill Jones:
Let us say 95+% of the relatively high quality rarities, including condition rarities, that cost more than $1500 each. I was referring to major Heritage and SBG auctions. The Goldbergs send a lot of coins to CAC, too, though I do not analyze Goldbergs auctions of rare U.S. coins as much as I did in the past. I have been covering their auctions of world coins.
Bill Jones:
They will not know exactly. CAC was founded in 2007. Many coins that are offered now were sent in the past. There are some coins that have been sent to CAC on several occasions. CAC evaluates 400 to 500 coins every business day, many of which come from auction companies.
Bill Jones:
No, there are many people who will not pay much of a premium (if any) for CAC coins and will gladly buy non-CAC coins. Obviously, CAC coins are not needed for PCGS registry sets.
In some areas, there are few CAC approved coins. It would be almost impossible to sensibly collect, circulated rare date gold while considering only CAC approved coins. For some rarities, zero to five are CAC approved. It is logical to consider non-CAC coins. I cannot agree with the CAC-only crowd. Mr. Jones is over-reacting.
Bill Jones:
No, the matter is not that simple. A coin may not be solid for the grade and still be accurately graded. A coin that grades 65.2 (65C in JA's terminology) and is in a 65 holder may fail to sticker, though still be accurately graded. Also, in auctions, a non-CAC coin in a 65 holder may bring a 64-level price. In some cases, those are good deals.
Many non-CAC coins do well in auctions. Sometimes, there are bidding wars for non-CAC coins. The average difference in prices realized between CAC and non-CAC coins is not as large as Mr. Jones is implying that it might e or could soon become. Moreover, many of the CAC approved coins generated enthusiasm before CAC was founded in 2007. There are a multitude of factors that affect auction prices. CAC is an important factor, but there are other leading factors.
What are Auction Prices?
On many occasions, I I have recommended coins that failed at CAC to my clients, while explicitly acknowledging that such coins will probably never sticker in their current holders. I explain plausible reasons as to why specific coins were not stickered. IMO, it is important to discuss the positive and negative aspects of individual coins, regardless of whether they have stickers. The characteristics of a coin cannot be entirely boiled down to a single number. Certifications are being taken too seriously! Besides, neither JA nor PCGS will last forever. Eventually, there will be new services and market grading criteria will continue to change.
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
It doesn't mean that at all.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Analyst: This has been an informative but also gut wrenching thread. You seem to be back peddling the influence of CAC a bit. As I see it though, CAC has influence over perhaps a billion dollars worth of $1000 plus graded coins. In my experience the sticker is worth a 10% pop in price. That is significant. Particularly when left to a single pair of eyes. Are there other graders at CAC other than JA? Is there a succession plan?
Joebb21 noted that JA will remove the sticker from a previously approved coin if the resale at or above his bid is not available. Can you confirm that to be true?
Before CAC, the Ne Plus Ultra of the industry was PCGS. One knew that David Hall was at the helm, but never considered him to be the only grader and finalizer in the room.
It is disingenuous to reference Bill Jones as over reacting. Each man is king of his financial dominion.
I will follow his path and will pivot to a measured but steady liquidation of my professionally graded holdings.
I
I will follow his path and will pivot to a slow but steady liquidation of my professionally graded holdings.
Cough cough bullchit cough cough
The usual $10K?
Yah, I recognize the writing style. You've been here before. So kindly spare us the fake theatrics....
Reread the thread, TDN. Seems that those allied to CAC are the most fervent supporters. Many collectors though have concerns about the operation. Several forum veterans are shoved aside as chicken littles.
Drama queens
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
John Albanese got back into numismatics with CAC. I have it on good authority that he does quite a bit of wholesaling of gold coins and Morgans. If he is willing to buy a coin, it gets a sticker. He makes his money buying and selling coins, not by stickering them.
He is one of the smartest people in the room, and in my few dealings with him, is a stand up guy. He is well respected by anyone who knows anything in the numismatic community. But his willing to buy a coin doesn't automatically mean that it is superior for the grade, as Analyst pointed out in an earlier post. And there are some coins that just might not interest him, because he doesn't think he can sell them quickly. Some might have problems, and others might be just fine, but he may not think he can sell them quickly enough for his liking to sticker them.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Not really productive to start denigrating fellow posters.... If you think this thread is ridiculous, why post on it?
Best, SH
and others might be just fine, but he may not think he can sell them quickly enough for his liking to sticker them.
I'm not sure where this supposition came from but I believe it to be in error
Thank you!
I appears that the troll has returned. Let's ignore him until he can take a civil tone.
...for the same reason I don't try to outrun the sheriff
In terms of "overgraded CAC coins"...isn't JA saying that a stickered coin is worth the money of the associated grade? Many toners trade at 1-2 grade price levels above the slab grade. So if a 63 toner shows up in a 64 slab, no sticker?
As a young collector, I whole heartedly support CAC and what it means to the coin market and hobby.
Andrew Blinkiewicz-Heritage
In my experience many toners do not have a CAC sticker. I have always taken this to mean that JA prefers not to make market in toned coins that trade at price levels 1-2 grades above the slab grade. I have purchased toned IHC's from dealers that specialize in them and they are not a supporter of CAC, and in fact make written acknowledgment of that on their web sites.
I have a ton of nicely toned Morgans, all with CAC stickers.